Group Discussion Leader Study Guides

Meet Your Host

Michael Dowd
is America's evolutionary evangelist. A former UCC pastor and pioneer in the sustainability movement, he is the author of the bestselling book, Thank God for Evolution, which was endorsed by 6 Nobel Prize-winning scientists and by religious leaders across the spectrum. Learn more about Michael and his wife and mission partner, noted science writer and family educator Connie Barlow, here.

Christian Faith Requires Accepting Evolution, by Jonathan Dudley

In the evangelical community, the year 2011 has brought a resurgence of debate over evolution. The current issue of Christianity Today asks if genetic discoveries preclude an historical Adam. While BioLogos, the brainchild of NIH director Francis Collins, is seeking to promote theistic evolution among evangelicals, the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary recently argued that true Christians should believe the Earth is only a few thousand years old.

As someone raised evangelical, I realize anti-evolutionists believe they are defending the Christian tradition. But as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they’ve abandoned it.

In theory, if not always in practice, past Christian theologians valued science out of the belief that God created the world scientists study. Augustine castigated those who made the Bible teach bad science, John Calvin argued that Genesis reflects a commoner’s view of the physical world, and the Belgic confession likened scripture and nature to two books written by the same author.

These beliefs encouraged past Christians to accept the best science of their day, and these beliefs persisted even into the evangelical tradition. As Princeton Seminary’s Charles Hodge, widely considered the father of modern evangelical theology, put it in 1859: “Nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible; and we only interpret the Word of God by the Word of God when we interpret the Bible by science.”

In this analysis, Christians must accept sound science, not because they don’t believe God created the world, but precisely because they do.

Of course, anti-evolutionists claim their rejection of evolution is not a rejection of science. Phillip Johnson, widely considered the leader of the Intelligent Design movement, states that all he’s rejecting is the atheistic lens through which evolutionary scientists view the world. Evolution, he argues, is “based not upon any incontrovertible empirical evidence, but upon a highly philosophical presupposition.”

And to a certain extent, this line of argument makes sense. Science is not a neutral enterprise. Prior beliefs undoubtedly influence interpretation. If one believes God created vertebrates with a similar design plan, one can acknowledge their structural similarities without believing in common descent. No amount of radiocarbon dating evidence will convince someone the Earth is 4.5 billion years old if that person believes God created the world to look old, with the appearance of age.

But beyond a certain point, this reasoning breaks down. Because no amount of talk about “worldviews” and “presuppositions” can change a simple fact: creationism has failed to provide an alternative explanation for the vast majority of evidence explained by evolution.

• It has failed to explain why birds still carry genes to make teeth, whales to make legs, and humans to make tails.

• It has failed to explain why the fossil record proposed by modern scientists can be used to make precise and accurate predictions about the location of transition fossils.

• It has failed to explain why the fossil record demonstrates a precise order, with simple organisms in the deepest rocks and more complex ones toward the surface.

• It has failed to explain why today’s animals live in the same geographical area as fossils of similar species.

• It has failed to explain why, if carnivorous dinosaurs lived at the same time as modern animals, we don’t find the fossils of modern animals in the stomachs of fossilized dinosaurs.

• It has failed to explain the broken genes that litter the DNA of humans and apes but are functional in lower vertebrates.

• It has failed to explain how the genetic diversity we observe among humans could have arisen in a few thousand years from two biological ancestors.

Those who believe God created the world scientists study, even while ignoring most of the data compiled by those who study it, might as well rip dozens of pages out of their Bibles. Because if “nature is as truly a revelation of God as the Bible,” it’s basically the same thing.

Many think the widespread rejection of evolution doesn’t really matter. Evolution is about what happened in the past, the argument goes, so rejecting it doesn’t have an impact on policies we make today. And aside from school curricula, they may be right.

But the belief that scientists can discover truth, and that, once sufficiently debated, challenged and modified, it should be accepted even if it creates tensions for familiar belief systems, has an obvious impact on decisions that are made everyday. And it is that belief Christians reject when they reject evolution.

In doing so, they’ve not only led America astray on questions ranging from the value of stem cell research to the etiology of homosexuality to the causes of global warming. They’ve also abandoned a central commitment of orthodox Christianity.

Actually young earthers would need to show that god created the Earth to look old, not scientists. We also know there are stars millions of lightyears away and yet we see the light they radiated long ago. Talk about fantasy, young earthers bathe in it, they’ve created a cult of fantasy.

That doesn’t make any sense. Shouldn’t ‘young earthers’ need to show that God created the Earth to look young, not old? It should be those who believe that God created the Earth to look old to show that the Earth looks old.

If in fact the Earth is as old as you believe then why do you suppose is carbon 14 found in diamonds from deep inside the Earth’s crust? AND Why does Jack Horner refuse to do radiocarbon dating on soft tissue T.rex fossils? Also, Why is carbon 14 found in Carboniferous Strata which is supposedly billions of years old? The simple fact is that the world doesn’t appear to look old, “with the appearace of age” but rather it appears to be young, and radiocarbon dating actually confirms this to be true, even though evolutionists are in stark denial about this simple fact.

It is not clear how light from stars millions of lightyears away has any impact on calculating the age of the Earth but then I have heard no solution to the Pioneer Anomaly which is in favor of millions of years.

“as a seminary graduate now training to be a medical scientist, I can say that, in reality, they’ve abandoned it.” FLAWLESS LOGIC!! (Sorry for the sarcasm…) I have to say, is that what they teach at Yale now? False conclusion without backing support. He says many things about what past people said, but there is still no Bible in here to back what he says.

He does give credit where credit is due and reveals flaws

If he wants to prove that we absolutely have to, then he has to prove from scripture that God commands that we read the Bible through a scientific lens. Then, we look at the presuppositions of science and make sure they line up with the Bible. Finally, we mesh the two together and see if they match up.

The bible says that “For his(God’s) invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made.(Romans 1:20, ESV)”

God can be seen, in part, through his creation. We can learn about Him through creation.

If we want to learn about God, we study science, but because of our “debased mind[s] to do what ought not to be done.(Rom 1:28, ESV)” we cannot have a perfect interpretation of the revelation that God has given to us.

Science cannot be infallibly interpreted. So we cannot say that “to be a Christian ID(Intelligent Design) supporter is to err.”

Evolution can be true, but it is an interpretation of the data given. I agree with him that if ID wants to be taken seriously, then they need to scientifically explain the data.

Until then, I will believe that God could have used evolution, but did not have to.

I believe that God made the universe 6,000ish years ago. He also could have made it filled and flourishing. God could very well have made the earth 4.5 billion years old. Not just some “apparent age.” What if God really made it that old? but 6,000 years ago? Have we even thought about that? It makes more logical sense than some ID theories…

Very poignant and sad to say, oh so true, hey Michael. It seems so sad that many(not all to be completely fair) but a sad many seem to value science and relgion as two separate entitiies, and so one gets, i(n many cases, I would suspect, could be wrong) extreme dualism, which views as I just described. If true, it seems a great indictment of some of the extreme evangelicals, which has lead to , as you may, or may not, degradation of the Earth. Great post Michael, and all the best, always. Phillip. Oh, BTW, I’ve got though a bit of your book and what I’ve read so far is amazing stuff! Congrats, and God bless!